The change camp must understand: cooperation with the ultra-Orthodox must be strengthened

The change camp in Israel often speaks about the need for repair: strengthening democracy, equality in the burden, integration into society and the economy, fighting the cost of living, and ensuring a shared future. If a change government is formed after the elections, it will be required to make a decision: whether to continue viewing the ultra-Orthodox society as a political rival, or to identify within it the partners who can help lead change.

The criticism of the ultra-Orthodox leadership is not superfluous, and the deep disagreements will not change the day after: a discussion on core curriculum studies, integration into employment, improving the status of women, and the issue of conscription must take place. These are essential steps for moving from separation to shared responsibility. However, confrontation with the leadership alone is not a policy, and is not a way to build a new reality. Whoever seeks to strengthen the state-oriented Israel must identify and strengthen the ultra-Orthodox forces that seek change from within, and cooperate with them. Until now, these forces have not received recognition or a political and institutional infrastructure that would allow them to influence.

The public view tends to be uniform: one leadership, one position, one public. This is a mistaken and harmful view. Within the ultra-Orthodox society, a significant group of women and men, activists and professionals, is developing, seeking to formulate a different path. It is still devoid of organized political power, but it has an audience, leadership, and the potential to change the relations between the ultra-Orthodox and the state. This group is the "state-oriented ultra-Orthodoxy".

These are ultra-Orthodox men and women who seek to preserve their identity, lifestyle, and world of Torah, and at the same time see the state as a shared home. They want to integrate into higher education, the economy, the public service, and the civil space; to live as citizens with equal rights and duties; to influence the state, and not to isolate themselves from it. They do not give up their ultra-Orthodoxy, but rather shape an ultra-Orthodoxy that takes responsibility for the whole.

Although it is a minority, the research of Dr. Lee Cahaner and Dr. Nahumee Yaffe points to a public comprising tens of percents of the ultra-Orthodox, possessing open positions regarding the state, education, and employment. Precisely for this reason, a government seeking change must focus its activity where there is a willingness for it. There is no point in basing policy on the assumption that the conservative mainstream will change under external pressure alone, but rather one must build power, institutions, and incentives for those who are moving in a different direction.

A change government will not be able to suffice with coalition agreements or media struggles, but will be required to build a long-term civil partnership: to involve representatives of state-oriented ultra-Orthodoxy already in policy planning, to open paths of influence for them in government ministries, local authorities, and public institutions, and to strengthen institutions and community initiatives that create an infrastructure for organization for them.

In every government ministry, a perspective that is attentive and connected to the field is required, which is not replicated from the known forces alone. This is true for education, employment, housing, the public service, and the issue of conscription. The choice is not between giving up values and constant confrontation. Stable change is not forced from the outside alone - it grows from within. State-oriented ultra-Orthodoxy can be one of the most important alliances of the change government, and the time has come to see it as a partner.